1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a limited-use tape cassette, such as a video tape cassette that only permits a predetermined number of viewings of a video movie. The preferred exemplary embodiment enables at least one complete play of the tape while allowing partial rewinds and at least one full rewind so as to insure at least a predetermined limited number (e.g., one) of substantially unfettered complete use(s) of the cassette.
2. Related Art
Video rental stores typically rent video cassettes for a fixed fee that enables the renter to view the video an unlimited number of times over a prescribed time period. Renters typically are required to pay additional daily rental fees if the video is kept beyond the prescribed initial time period. To accommodate this arrangement, video rental stores must keep detailed renter, accounting and inventory records--as well as check returned cassettes and return them to the rental inventory. The renter, on the other hand must view the rented video soon after acquiring it and then make a prompt return trip to the rental store (to minimize rental fees).
It would be desirable to simply sell "throw-away" or non-returnable video cassettes on a pay-per-view or limited-use basis. If this could be done, it would no longer be necessary for the video store to check and re-stock inventory returns or to administer complicated renter accounts and/or return/restocking costs. In addition, the transaction can now be a sale rather than a rental thus facilitating its occurrence in any store, not just a specialty rental store. The ability to move the transaction from a specialty store to a store the potential customer already visits for other purchases is a significant benefit. Purchasers of limited-use videos would also benefit in that the hassles associated with substantially immediate viewing and/or returning of the rented video cassette could be eliminated. In addition, because of the economics of this limited use approach, the current difficulty of maintaining sufficient rental stock of hit movies to fully satisfy consumer demand is avoided (currently more than 50% of rental consumers cannot find a desired hit movie on a first single trip to the video rental store).
Although there have been many prior attempts to provide such pay-per-view or limited-use tape cassettes, they all have drawbacks that have so far prevented wide-spread usage of such limited-use cassettes. For example, some utilize complicated mechanisms that may be too expensive to manufacture and/or that may be prone to failure or exhibit another annoying adverse impact on a normal unfettered use (e.g., including normal rewind operations to see some portion of the video again which might have been missed during an unexpected phone call or the like) during the authorized number of viewings.
Some prior attempts to provide a limited-use cassette are represented by the following:
U.S. Pat. No. 4,466,584--Chevalier et al (1984) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,802,048--Perkins (1989) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,228,637--Granzotto (1993) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,473,688--Wiedemer (1995) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 3,584,506--Edwards et al (1971) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 3,831,881--Tucker (1974) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,351,497--Kieseling et al (1982) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,482,104--Saito (1984) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,512,535--Dickson et al (1985) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,632,335--Dickson et al (1986) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,702,434--Brauer (1987) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,801,107--Dixon et al (1989) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,874,143--Armstrong et al (1989) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,928,905--Granzotto et al (1990) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,152,621--Tsuji (1992) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,274,605--Gruber, Jr. (1981) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,575,778--Vogelgesang (1986) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,034,841--French (1991) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,130,879--Weiley (1992) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 3,612,774--Wiklund (1971) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,660,115--Westfall et al (1987) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,660,116--Westfall et al (1987) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,763,218--Westfall et al (1988) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,847,718--Miller et al (1989) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,942,492--Che (1990) PA1 U.S. Pat. No. 4,842,217--Vinson (1989)
Chevalier and Perkins add a complicated ratchet-wheel counter arrangement driven by an inter-spool double follower (e.g., a V-shaped inter-reel follower) and which, after a predetermined number of full (or partial) play cycles, locks the cassette from all further use. In Perkins, this locking occurs if the cartridge is thereafter removed from the tape deck and/or it moves an erase magnet into position to erase the tape as it is being thereafter played or rewound.
Granzotto discloses a tape cassette that allows complete play only once. A follower arm follows the wound tape radius on the take-up reel. When a predetermined amount of tape is wound onto the take-up reel, a separate internal lock mechanism is set such that when the tape is thereafter rewound, a free locking arm is displaced into the path of a tooth carried by an inner locking member on the take-up reel (e.g., when a predetermined amount of tape has been rewound onto the supply reel). Thereafter, forward feeding of the tape is inhibited because the locking member locks the take-up reel by virtue of a pawl.
Wiedemer uses a programmed microprocessor control in conjunction with a machine-readable label on the cassette and a controllable internal cassette lock to limit the number of play cycles to some predetermined amount.
Although these prior art examples demonstrate a long-felt need in the art for a limited-use tape cassette, they all involve relatively complex mechanisms which may be prone to failure (or relatively easy to defeat by the consumer) and at least some of which may interfere with an unfettered use of the cartridge during the authorized period of use.
Other prior attempts have employed various types of one-way mechanical clutches or other mechanisms so as to prevent rewinding of the cassette. This, however, seriously interferes with a normal licensed usage of a video cassette service as some stopping, rewinding and re-viewing is within the expected realm of usage by a substantial number of customers. Some examples of these anti-reverse approaches are noted below:
Of course, there are also prior art cartridge locking systems which automatically prevent rotation whenever the cartridge is removed from the video player after a play cycle is begun. U.S. Pat. No. 4,604,671--Oishi (1986) is one example of such a mechanism.
A variation on the anti-reverse approach is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,454,528--Shanahan (1995) where the anti-reverse mechanism is only invoked if the rotational speed exceeds normal play speed during the first portion of the video--thus preventing the renter from fast-forwarding through preliminary advertisement materials.
A number of prior approaches merely incorporate use counters of various types:
Various other types of cartridge tape-erasing magnets have been employed (some being deployed so as to insure only one play cycle). For example:
Finally, some prior attempts have even gone so far as to physically destroy the tape just after it is first played--on its way to the take-up reel. On example of this approach is:
Accordingly, there remains a need for an improved solution to this long-standing problem.